Thursday, October 9, 2008

Richard Cooey Not Too Fat to Execute

CNN reported the story today that the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio decided the convicted murderer Richard Cooey is not too fat to execute. We discussed this case before when the motion was made. The commenting got fairly heated.

The 41-year-old is scheduled to be executed Tuesday for killing two University of Akron students in 1986.

He would be the first person to be put to death in the state since the end of a de facto moratorium on lethal injection.

I will consider Tuesday a sad day for Ohio and for America. To me it's inconceivable that in the United States of America in the 21st century we cannot come up with a more humane manner of dealing with these dangerous men. And what surprises me is the venom with which people talk about these guys. It's as if doing inhuman things causes them to stop being human beings in the eyes of many.

I say Richard Cooey is a human being, perhaps a sick and damaged one, but human nevertheless, and for no other reason is worthy of respect and humane treatment.

What's your opinion? Is there no better way to deal with convicted murderers? Does the death penalty deter others from committing atrocities? Is the furious killing of a blood thirsty man with seemingly no conscience as bad as the calculated killing of the mafia hit man?

22 comments:

Jacketed Hollow Point to the base of the skull would probably cause a little less pain and suffering.

A REAL death penalty where sentences are allowed quick reasonable appeal, then the sentence is served quickly and without fanfare or hoopla, might be better for the next generation thinking of doing monsterous things.

Right now the death sentence is a joke and a circus. It SHOULD be a punishment.

Jesus wasn't as gentle and forgiving as many like to state, at least as far as the historical references, REMEMBER, Jesus was a Jew:

"Thou shalt not kill" refers to murder only, and does not prohibit the taking of life under any circumstances; notably, the law of Sinai specifically requires capital punishment for a large number of offenses.

At the last supper, Jesus' final instructions to the apostles begin: "When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," the apostles answer. Jesus continues: "But now, if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." He ends by observing "what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The apostles then announce, "Lord, behold, here are two swords," and Jesus cuts them off: "That is enough." (Luke 22: 36-38)

He also prevented battle over his arrest BUT: In the context of the time, he didn't want his zealots to start a self-fatal revolt, another Masada as it were. It wasn't because he was against the use of force of arms when needed.

Other than that, the New Testament is basically MUTE on capital punishment.

Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans seem OK with capital punishment. Methodists don't. Episcopalians are wishy-washy like they are on about everything. Jews run the range from antis in the Reform Movement and Strongly PRO in the Orthodox movements. Islamists are PRO.

i've harped on why i oppose capital punishment in the past, and i still stand by my opinions. it's an unnecessary, unjustified practice that ends up abused, and of those three reasons to oppose it, the third is the least important to me, even though it's probably sufficient in and of itself.

The death penalty needs to be abolished. If even one person is wrongly convicted and executed that should be reason enough to get rid of it. There is ample substantiation this happens. http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/After-Exoneration.php If they are proved innocent before they are executed their lives have been destroyed, families torn apart , and the stigma of being a convict hangs over them forever. Not to mention the indignities of being imprisoned for many, many years. I've always been fascinated that pro-life extremists seem to have no qualms at all with the death penalty. In fact, they seem to be its most vocal proponents...

I'm pro-abortion up to and including the 100,000th trimester if the person needs killin'. Just as soon do it myself than let it drag through the courts, though, hence my views on gun laws and why they should be abolished.

If I catch you trying to rape murder my sister/mom/whoever, I'm going to "send you to Jesus" right fucking there. Cuts a lot of waste in the appeals process.

Please define how this person hasn't been treated humanely? Has there been cruel treatment, abuse? Did he not receive adequate legal counsel?

Cooey has been treated humanely, he has been treated with respect and should continue to receive that type of treatment right up to the moment of his death.

I'll make a deal with you; I'll support getting rid of the death penalty when people stop murdering innocent people.

John Lott, one of many, has shown the death penalty to be a deterrent.

Capital punishment clearly increases the risk to criminals of engaging in various crimes, especially murder. But does this increased risk affect criminals’ behavior? Last week the academic debate erupted in the media with an Associated Press article headlined "Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime,” but even this recognition downplays the general consensus on the findings.

The media is a bit Johnny-come-lately in recognizing all the research that has been done on the death penalty over the last decade, with nine of the 12 refereed academic studies by economists finding that the death penalty saves lives...Generally, the studies over the last decade that examined how the murder rates in each state changed as they changed their execution rate found that each execution saved the lives of roughly 15 to 18 potential murder victims. Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.

Tell me how much respect Cooey gave the women he killed, tell me how he treated them humanely. Cooey has been treated better then he is willing to treat people.

The protection against cruel and unusual punishment doesn't protect against death, it doesn't it require that death be painless. Just kill this type of person, firing squad, hanging, electric chair, lethal injection; it doesn't matter as long as it is quick and not cruel.

I, too, am opposed to the death penalty. Not because I think it's morally wrong for the state to execute violent criminals, but because, like a pp mentioned, innocent people are sentenced to death unjustly.

I *am* morally opposed to the state-sanctioned murder of innocent people and am willing to live with human monsters rotting away in prison forever if it means no innocent man will be wrongfully executed. In an ideal world, only the guilty would be sentenced to death, in which case I'd be pro-death penalty all the way. I have little compassion for those who have none for others.

Another reason I'm against the death penalty? Imagine if Charles Manson would've been sentenced to death and executed. We wouldn't have the pleasure of his wonderfully entertaining interviews every few years when he comes up for parole. I'd be surprised if those don't act as a deterrent--if not to murder, than to falling under the spell of a batshit would-be messiah with crazy devil eyes!

How many impressionable, sick, twisted individuals read or watch those "entertaining" interviews and seek to emulate Mansion?

We know that copy cat killers exist and take as their role models some of the worst killers. Why should we take the chance that can happen by letting the murderers live, give interviews, write letters, etc?

How is it a contradictory position to say that parent's should deal with the consequences of their choices - not abort them (pro-life)- and that people who commit crimes should deal with the consequences of their choices(pro-death)?

For the record, I'm pro-choice. I don't think that abortion should be illegal but I would definitely like to see less use of it.

I find the opposite view point to be confusing more; it's not okay to execute murderous criminals but it is okay to terminate the life of a embryo/fetus/child.

I personally feel that life begins at embryo implantation, and that zygote is just as much a person as you or I. If the pregnancy self-aborts, that's natures way, just like when somebody develops a fatal disease and dies naturally.

This unborn baby is alive, and innocent of any crime, and abortion is an act done as a concequence of the parrents, not the baby, and is wrong. (Politically I know there is no way to effectivly ban abortion, and we gain a lot of tools to lower the overall numbers by having it done legally and in the open...so I'm pro-choice on that ground, but I understand that's a nuts-and-bolts choice, not a moral one)

Meanwhile execution is highly regulated and done as a result of the actions of a person who is to be executed.

To compare the two would be like comparing Female Genital Mutilation in Africa to sex-change operations done around the world.

Both involve genitals being cut....one by a willing adult who has chosen that procedure for medical reasons...the other a teenage girl being held against her will by family mebers while she is mutilated.

I'd like to think the majority of people who watch Manson interviews would take away from them that he's a fucking crackpot, and if they ever meet someone like him to run like hell. Or that if they recognize similar behaviors and traits in a loved one, to get them help. Or if they think their loved one might be falling prey to a similar individual, to get them help as well.

I'm sure he serves as a cautionary tale to far more people than he does an inspiration to commit similar crimes.

You don't think there's EVER an instance where abortion is acceptable?

How about mine? We found out during our first pregnancy that our son had several birth defects that would cause him to either die in utero or shortly after birth. We only found this out at 24 weeks gestation, so we had no legal choice but to carry him to term. He passed away 4 weeks later although he wasn't supposed to make it out of the delivery room.

The doctors and geneticists could not pinpoint what caused his health problems, chalked it up to bad luck and gave us the go ahead to get pregnant again. We tried again a year later and had a 1st trimester miscarriage which was once again chalked up to bad luck.

After another year of trying and no success, we got pregnant with identical twin boys via IVF. It was determined at 18 wks that they had the same issues that our first son had. It was only then that the docs realized that we were dealing with a recessive genetic disorder so rare that it can't be found in the medical books. Their best guess is that it's a rare variation of a rare disease--Meckel-Gruber--which has a 100% mortality rate.

Because this was determined early enough in the pregnancy, we chose to terminate. I can tell you from having been through both options, they're both equally devastating. We knew whether we chose to terminate or tough it out that our sons would die regardless.

We didn't choose for them to die, just when. And it didn't save us any pain or grief, it just allowed us to start grieving sooner, and to not have to go through the added trauma of burying two more children.

After that, we opted for adoption because we never wanted to be put in the position to have to make that painful choice again. Several months into the process, we found out that we were pregnant for the 4th time. To this day I have no idea how hubby managed to slip one past the goalie, but it does happen. I blame his tenacious Jewish sperm. There's a reason the Jews have survived almost 6,000 years of persecution and genocide.

Luckily our son is healthy and not affected by the disease (there was a 1 in 4 chance he would be). Had he been, I don't doubt that we would've made the decision to terminate again.

We still plan to adopt our second child. I think there are very few women out there who take abortion lightly. And as a prospective adoptive parent, I'm grateful that many mothers decide to give birth and place their children for adoption so women who can't have children of their own may fulfill their dreams of motherhood despite faulty plumbing. However, I do recognize that there are instances like mine where it's the best (and ONLY, I would argue) decision for those involved.

Vicki, personally, no I don't think there is any time when Abortion is OK, even your instance, tho I don't see your case as bad as the vast majority of abortions going on right now that are simply unplanned pregnancies.

Still, my personal feelings are irrelevant, as horrible as I see abortion being, I see black-market abortion, and all the data that can be collected as preventative measures and post-abortion help for patience being lost underground as FAR worse, and I would not support any act to make abortion illegal.

That's where I stand.

Also I'm sorry for your loss, and glad to hear your son is healthy, and wish you the best of luck on your future adoption!

Vicki, Your are one brave woman. I'm so glad you're commenting over here. I was so impressed with your story about the pregnancies, but even more impressed that you dared to share it to a mainly male commentariat. I have the greatest respect for you.

Often when the topic is abortion, I think men should just shut up and listen to what the women have to say. I've developed a great friendship for Weer'd, but when I read his comments on abortion I'm thinking if I were a woman, I'd want to go out and get a gun. How did you feel about what he said and the fact that he said it?

I am in agreement with Weer'd but please read very carefully what he said.

Still, my personal feelings are irrelevant, as horrible as I see abortion being...and I would not support any act to make abortion illegal.

I agree with Weer'd. I stated it as I personally would like to see fewer abortions (wouldn't we) but I'll never work to make it illegal.There will be situations where it makes sense, there is a strong reason to abort like Vicki's.

Would I or my wife make the same decisions, probably. Does it make at any easier to make a decision like that for sound medical reasons, I wouldn't think so.

About the men shutting up, are you of the opinion that men shouldn't have any say at all about the future of their child?That embryo/fetus/child is as much the father's child as it is the mother's, isn't it?

Nah. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and I hope no one on here ever has to face the types of decisions my husband and I had to face. If I had one wish, it would be that everyone on the planet who wants to could crank out perfectly healthy babies as easlily as 17 y/o celebrities, governor's daughters, and pieces of human detritus like Precious Doe's parents do.

To be clear, though, my uterus was nothing more than a life support system by that point. The twins were destined to die as soon as the umbilical cord was cut, whether that happened at 19 wks or full term. I had no choice in that matter.

My only choice was whether to terminate at 19 wks which involved a much less invasive procedure (D&E), or have to go through the physical trauma of a c-section (which is far worse than a D&E--I've had both). That's it. That was the extent of my choice.

And the prize behind door #2 comes with a host of other parting gifts that men don't generally think about or have to deal with when forming their opinions on abortion. Namely, having to endure the duration of your pregnancy with every kick and punch reminding you that your children are going to die and there's not a damn thing you can do to protect them. Apart from them actually dying, that's the 2nd worst feeling a mother can ever know.

It also comes with the burden of trying not to break down every time a well-meaning stranger asks "When are you due?," "Do you know what you're having?," and follows that with the one phrase I learned to dread most, "You must be so excited!!" Men are spared that further trauma since they're not the ones walking around with an obvious bump.

If there is a god, I really don't see how he or she would want any mother or father to have to endure that, so it makes it even more difficult to understand how any person could.

As far as men are concerned, in general, I think they've had their say over women's reproductive organs for millennia--and still do in many cultures and religious sects (some right here in the ol' USofA!).

I don't condone a woman having an abortion without at least notifying the father, if not obtaining his consent except in cases of rape or incest or fear of a violent reaction when the father finds out she's knocked up. I had a friend who once received a "free abortion" from her boyfriend when she told him they were expecting. He kicked her in the stomach until she miscarried. She had to have reconstructive surgery.

Still, I try not to judge women who terminate their pregnancies for reasons different from mine. And I'm happy with the law where it is in most states, that abortion is legal up until 24 wks when the fetus is viable outside the womb and after that when necessary to save the life of the mother.

And I think the "embryo implantation" theory is dicey. Embryos don't always implant in the uterus, ya know. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, the fetus (which absolutely will not survive under any circumstance)must be aborted. I think MedLine puts it rather succinctly.

"Ectopic pregnancies cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."

Therefore any law that would outlaw abortion of an implanted embryo could lead to an overwhelming number of maternal deaths per year. Approx. 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic. The latest nos. I could find from the CDC were from 1992 in which there were 108,000 ectopic pregnancies in the US alone that year.

I get a very scared & very angry when male politicians who probably only have a passing understanding of how the female reproductive organs work try to pass laws about them.